7. Variance requests, Carver Beach I _ C I TY O F BOA DATE: 4/23 7
CHANHASSEN CC DATE: 4/23
CASE #: 90-1 VAR
II
I STAFF REPORT
. ,
I
PROPOSAL: Variance to the Lot Area and Lot Depth Requirements to
I I-
Construct a Single Family Residence
' Z
Q LOCATION: North of Yuma Drive and Carver Beach Road Intersection
V Lots 1083-1089, Carver Beach
111 J APPLICANT: Francis Trinka Dan Castonguay
10670 N. Shore Rd. 6101 Beard Ave. N. , Apt. 3
Waconia, MN 55387 Brooklyn Center, MN 55429
Q
I PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family
AcNo t ay G, r.A-40,..r e
ACREAGE: 14,000 square feet
1 DENSITY: N/A 14'' 4 -.- ---
ADJACENT ZONING AND �� $
' LAND USE: N - RSF; single family '' ' '
S - RSF; single family co C0tfw
I a y a3 90
I E - RSF; single family
Q W - RSF; single family
WATER AND SEWER: Proposed to be extended from Carver Beach
IW Road.
PHYSICAL CHARACTER. : Vacant. The site is heavily wooded and
contains a number of mature trees. The
I site slopes toward the west. The lots
front on an undeveloped ROW.
I2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential
I
7_ CITY O F BOA DATE DATE: 4/2 3
�}
CHM7HASEI CC DATE: 4/23
CASE #: 90-1 VAR
I
I . STAFF REPORT
1
PROPOSAL: Variance to the Lot Area and Lot Depth Requirements to
I IIConstruct a Single Family Residence
L__
Q LOCATION: North of Yuma Drive and Carver Beach Road Intersection
Lots 1083-1089, Carver Beach
APPLICANT: Francis Trinka Dan Castonguay
10670 N. Shore Rd. 6101 Beard Ave. N. , Apt. 3
Waconia, MN 55387 Brooklyn Center, MN 55429
I (If
I
IPRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Familyl..5A o
ACREAGE: 14,000 square feet
IDENSITY: N/A /07:4 -- _�
ADJACENT ZONING AND Ix'._._ -I .-9 0_
ILAND USE: N - RSF; single family ' °'''- ' . 1 -'
S - RSF; single family Detc �_t.::-•:' '•0 counctl
I Q y-a3 - 9C
E - RSF; single family
W - RSF; single family
WATER AND SEWER: Proposed to be extended from Carver Beach
IW Road.
PHYSICAL CHARACTER. : Vacant. The site is heavily wooded and
MOcontains a number of mature trees. The
I site slopes toward the west. The lots
front on an undeveloped ROW.
I2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential
I
' Cy T . ( i ' I . . . N COUNTY
�t s '17, LAKE / `' T•*14*Ir! re-- ill
TRAPNE• 4, . CIRUCLE lorritett
61,44.,,,L.,A4ter a 4 14‘ 4 %MIR
"1:054 s la.0 1_.4_ _
- 4:41:'.
• v ,10 Al �., ;, 1,�� k,,_ n ! if.„,‹
ii,- - alr401. " Il■ rteri'Va el olysk r4s.
. .II
, D sr othebi. .
cf.y.1,. 4 •Aiimesiat
ili
t.....■r■ a w . � ' I COURT i tre4
1 ( gir, • PROPOSED
it..
argewm, �. ::;;;; FIANCE ,;
i'r-1 f / fri
.0 - • rit■lif an I 111-k—citi -hi \- ----
i
. iblemdi Al. es: i• ^et imlige '--; •olt.
' . Wring I a .sysir,....,, I 17...7r7rThrIlli' 9111.1A:t _,mcd‘ \, L OTUS _-------- -:,;___,__)
itro,,
y a _ ■ s 4 :A. 10 II �•� l . X11j� /lirf,,,..`*
Is EL up i'ixiicin ` , , ..
miamia G
r %it::::11itZ•• 00° I mEI # .�\ irda'44416■■�`�� /SHADOWMERE s--- ri_
. 'R 4 r. ImmiNs■ . nil , --iint"1"-:\ ' F"-- "Ilklif
—7---• wroz4 ..: ,....- -IFEO -„,..,\ • ;at ,itic RS o°� '-� 1``y a ,� 'c. • w ,��, LAKE \- -- ___ - S.I. ,ter' O ■�l■_41%--• PclicIllip g9.4'w-4 :t,'".iiii -14:31
1 1 ) A
co t c trif - , .,..... in-fire-A ,,r;at,
.1.W .;',?j 1111111Alle LAIINSII iiiiiii. .u.;,,reee, - - /
Att,:., a Ilk 1111 NO WOW ';■--‘"-:'4 ilibilIC ,4tX
ON Alla ill . S hi; "Pilbalq0 arAln, 0111.11.1 11191/40) \‘
ti., . fit- ► .� • v7 -.looz A 1111:3 N
..I kogigam. ,At 1.f 1 t 41 '1i;,► s,1a ,1 6 1 A
. .'\ ■.Z,I..I Iial mu =w- , =g ' i R 7 O' -m air-- sm. ..I !-
R1 a ter-- Wm •1r., E -
.■•a ■Im No.—
ii MO I` .'� 11W11 !".1';,1:: •111 '
Willi airriSalim,_ ■ NM 11111n.
_ i� :111111V" -
Trinka Variance I
April 23, 1990
Page 2 1
PROPOSAL
The applicant has acquired 7 lots in Carver Beach, each having a
dimension of 20 feet by 100 feet which gives it a total area of
14,000 square feet. The lot depth is 100 feet and the lot width is
140 feet. The parcels are under two separate property
identification numbers with total area below the 15,000 square foot
minimum requirement of the zoning ordinance. The applicant is
proposing to merge the two separate parcels into one lot.
The zoning ordinance requires 15,000 square foot lots with 125 foot
of depth. The proposed new lot will not meet either of these
standards resulting in the need for two variances. The ordinance
does provide an exception for lots of record existing prior to the
date of ordinance adoption and this has frequently been applied in
the Carver Beach. It allows lots to be buildable if they meet 75%
of the current standard or 11,250 square feet of area and 94 foot
of depth. The new lot could comply with this reduced standard but
we do not it is believe it is eligible to be grandfathered since,
although the underlying lots predate the ordinance, the newly
assembled one does not.
Staff is reviewing this variance in two different manners. Under
existing hardship criteria, we tend to believe that this is a self
created situation that is in our opinion not worthy of a variance.
We make this statement due to the fact that the lots have been
assembled by an individual who is fully aware of current ordinance
requirements. There are additional undeveloped lots located
adjacent to this parcel which could theoretically provide
sufficient lot area if they were also combined. It is then
incumbent upon us to determine whether or not these parcels have
some legitimate use if they are not to be acceptable as a building
site. We note that the platting done in the Carver Beach area is
an archaic form of subdivision that was often used in the 1910's
and 1920's whereby individuals could purchase as many tiny lots as
they felt they needed to assemble into an acceptable home site.
Unfortunately, it often left remnant lot situations which
communities like ours and neighborhoods like this must deal with
many years hence. We also note that the lots appear to have gone
tax forfeit in the past. While a denial would prevent a home from
being built on these lots, we note that they could still be
combined with any one of a number of lots that surround them to
become enlarged yard areas. This may not offer the highest return
for the land but it is still a use.
Staff has presented a draft ordinance revision to the Planning
Commission, Board of Adjustments and City Council that would have
the effect of modifying the findings of fact required for
variances. We are not proposing to use the draft ordinance in
place of current code, however, in this instance we believe that
the proposed revised findings provide valid information to consider
even under the current ordinance. Staff reviewed this lot proposal
and variance request relative to other lots in the area. We
reviewed it against lots located on the same block as the subject
site and lots located within 500 feet of the property. While we
found ample examples to support the lot depth variance, we could
Trinka Variance
April 23, 1990
Page 3
find no supporting evidence for the lot area variance. We note
' that all of the home sites located on the block containing the site
are located on lots exceeding 15, 000 square feet. Furthermore, we
found that within 500 feet, the average lot size in this
neighborhood is actually over 16, 000 square feet although the size
' of lots ranges from 9800 to 24,000 square feet. Therefore, we have
concluded that there is no precedent in the immediate area for lots
below 15,000 square feet. We fail to see the rationale for
' creating a new precedent.
There are several other issues that warrant discussion relative to
this proposal. Access is a significant concern. The parcel fronts
' on an undeveloped public right-of-way. It is illustrated as being
vacated on county plat maps, however, further investigation
indicates that this has not been done. City ordinances require
lots to have frontage on public ROW's but at the present time they
do not require that a lot have frontage on an improved public ROW.
Thus, we must confront the question of private use of a public ROW.
In the past, the city has had no formal policy or ordinance
regulating this activity. Other communities utilize a permit
procedure to allow this use to occur. The permit could set design
standards for the driveway, require that there be an
acknowledgement that anybody that reasonably needs to, could use
the driveway after it is constructed, as well as requiring the
maintenance of liability coverage to protect the city in the event
' of an accident. Other alternatives that could be considered in
this case include the requiring of installation of a city street.
Since it appears as though this street would only serve one lot and
would impact existing homes and it does not appear to be an
' appropriate location for a cul-de-sac, we do not believe this is a
valid approach in this case. The third option could be the
vacation of the undeveloped ROW, however, in the case of the
' subject site, it is located in such a way that vacation of the ROW
would leave it landlocked. Staff is proposing to address this
matter in a position paper for discussion by the City Council in
early May. We would be asking the Council for direction as to what
sort of policy should be enacted. Given this concern, we would ask
that if the Board of Adjustments determines that the variance
request warrants approval that they continue action on this matter
' until such time that we are able to resolve the access question.
In an attached memo by the Sr. Engineering Technician, he notes
that there are conditions relative to provision of utility service
to the site. If the Board of Adjustments determines that the
variance warrants approval, we would ask that these conditions be
' included as a requirement of approval.
The Board of Adjustments shall not recommend and the Council shall
not grant a variance unless they find the following facts:
' 1. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue
hardship and practical difficulty.
' Undue hardship means the property cannot be put to
reasonable use because of its size, physical
surroundings, shape or topography. The site in question
Trinka Variance I
April 23, 1990
Page 4 1
was developed under an archaic subdivision that allowed
individual property owners whatever sized lots they
deemed necessary for their homesite. What is left at
this point in time are those remnants that were never
included into building lots for whatever reason. In some
respects, one could say that a reasonable use would be to
contain a homesite and staff does not deny that a home
could reasonably be developed on a 14,000 square foot
lot. However, in light of the underlying plat and
findings concerning the surrounding area, we believe that
a reasonable use of the property could be construed to be
what was probably its original intent and that is that
these lots be combined with other homesites and used as
yard area. Thus, while we believe denial of the variance
will diminish the value of these parcels, that does not
necessarily make them value less. We further note that
in terms of establishing the value of use on this
property that these parcels appear to have gone tax
forfeit in the past. '
2. That the hardship is caused by special conditions and
circumstances which are peculiar to the land and structure
involved and which are not characteristic of or applicable to
other lands or structures in the same district.
In terms of special conditions and circumstances peculiar
to the site, it can be concluded that this is a remnant
which are a circumstance of the local development pattern
currently which exists. It is also located in the Carver
Beach area which is commonly accepted to be one of the
neighborhoods where current ordinance standards are
difficult to apply. However, in the attached analysis,
staff has reviewed lots immediately surrounding the site
and lots within a 500 foot radius of it and concluded
that the average lot size in this particular section of
Carver Beach actually exceeds ordinance requirements.
Therefore, we fail to see the rationale for approving a
lot area variance that could be used to set a precedent
for future substandard subdivisions.
3. That the granting of the variance is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights.
The granting of the variance will allow the construction
of house on the property. However, as we noted above, it
would not be inappropriate to consider the use of these
lots as means of enlarging existing home sites in the
manner in which this subdivision was originally designed.
4. That the special conditions and circumstances are not a
consequence of a self-created hardship.
The special conditions and circumstances relative to this
proposal to a large extent result from previous
development decisions made many years ago. There is an
element of this being a self created hardship. Lots have
Trinka Variance
April 23, 1990
Page 5
11 been assembled by an individual in an attempt to create
a homesite. This is not an 'existing lot of records for
' which we believe the city would have some responsibility
to make it buildable. We note that there are three
additional lots located north of the property that are
currently undeveloped and possibly could also have been
included in the plat to eliminate the lot area variance.
' 5. That the variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect
the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the city or
the neighborhood wherein the property is situated and will be
in keeping with the spirit of this chapter.
Building the home is not going to be injurious or
adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of the
' residents of the neighborhood, but the private driveway
raises an issue of concern. It is being built on a
public right-of-way. Should the applicant fail to
' maintain it or if there were any injuries, the question
that arises is who would be held liable, the city or the
applicant.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the denial of the request for a variance to create
' a lot with 14,000 square feet and 100 foot of lot depth due to a
failure to find sufficient grounds for a hardship finding and since
there does not appear to be a precedent for smaller sized lots in
' this immediate area.
If the Board of Adjustments wishes to approve the variance, we
would recommend that this item be continued to allow staff to
' discuss the matter of private use of a public right-of-way with the
City Council and get their direction on establishing a policy for
dealing with these situations.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Plan showing areas within 500 feet.
2. Memo from Sr. Engineering Technician dated April 17, 1990.
3. Survey of lot.
1
I
IIIIII■11 - Aft. ,
1
/ ,,, / , , ,).../ ,/ / ,' ,', -r4, •/,f /frXi, all■ — 4 1(,..„, \\\ ot 44
.
, 'V MM. \ \ \ 13)
, 47?"\Pe s'. '‘ • .0'a \ \ ,'6, ":•,-
/,,4 ' ' // , 7,',, ./ , In=NM .
\ \- \*
_
,//' 44 ' ///5. , , / • / < N X• TO V--'A '4 \'\' - \
• 0
- i _ ..--- 4,414 . . , \\ . \
;•; ,,,- ,,,i,....,,,i4 //// . );,/„/ // , .., .. rn ..._ , 1
-tuo \ 5 s- >)ec\\, 5.\
•?5,:„,ca,c\.-
,,, ,,,. , ..* ". , / ,.y , ,/
4. t ! Nov- gb ,.... ' \ V . , ■0,It
/ :9` ‘\- A .. //12>c< .....--.-- Pj..; ;111 t4 6\%\ ‘ \
4J • s \ I; \s\4.,
'' \A).,
/ / / 1 .71-f I .... . H
• ... - s 0 \
0, )0 40.d / ". e N --- ‘ •
/ /4■- ,N s s. ■ 1 -' \ \ \ \
40 •
I 1 i r ,
..‘ \ -
., : , , 0\
P4fp 61.* ' VO k.a I 1 ..,' 4.
ir . to. - ...j . 1 .-. 4° • \\., \\•
ci •
_ . ,•,- cfcik \\. ‘.
.41, 9— , \\\ ,5 \
/
›/ o ,..."
—- 'Pv ? ' \
rrirrm _
N.,. .'14...^ _. • i ••• ,,:ei. :
\. .., „it
-
,\4,''44'-_?V 3 — ij ',' ',e'l f .■ e`4'. . I
0
••••'/OA. s'y t., . \\N ■ "Y 1 x, ill // „ e
f ',' 1 0 ' —' ' ; ',./
PRO' POSED ,) ,k - mem, 0. 0 1
^ iF.IVIa 0=1 o.,.•
VARIANCE •
• . tr.IrA 1.12
A \., vp.,...
-. k erAt. :=1 z-;, i 1 0 4° ...,..2 4,0
, / /' / • ‘,. firV"1-4/1 •"— 3 .v
—
olo •
\ p P • / //;
/ • i'qk .- i
.. , 1 ff.____
it- 4
.., .voLET le
' ,t; o / ''>',/,..,>•
+ / • -,\ H- 1068 0 lartiolk
;-FITT 2;) Imen
I
‘... . ; : , _ z „mu._ ,
_._ ...,
40,14.zip , " mi m ,.....„
, 0 ,..,..7
•••(•■ 4 " s N • •
• 0 40 •■•••••--
s\ ' t i■re
I
...x. ,p
4 4 IL L 0 Ki ,1 W
'IV
' ■ 0 , 41 V 17<, .. t. ...4* ,
.„-
4,, / • - 104 z,
7\ , 4" • TV/t? 'Po‘''.. ,-;--
.... ,, , ,
4q '` s .9. 'IC. • ./ 4P• ,>•'‘N, vb.- #042°
--/ " / / / '
,
' 4,o: • " *),A '
N, • \,/, „./r , es ty N V ■.. wz..7.-/.
,,,„ . .„,,.• , . C• `•
.t•
. ? 5 o ,; •Il
/ / .fiv- ' / / • "ii, . ,,,, ,, i., , , ,
0 A, 0 ; W ift. ,ft*itl. I 1 .
sv -,e),,,, / //// 4,0 -■, 40
_ ....0. v- ' .-- • ;.,/ • ,, o
, ,' ... ". 6 * ■ '
i W
VI, t .. _" . . - ■,/, tfir 11%.111.1 '
. , IJ-, -• ,r, i i , I
,,,,,‘ /, i. •,, • i ..., . ,**--.. 6-
1
„ ,
,i, s N-, 4 ■' ,. ii 4%%"41 ;l
//://Z.;f.'. ./..1-::/'',. ■ '44,.: `,.... N.N.... So '- I I
I
I
I
I ' , x ♦ •'
1M 1 7//11. 40- //›.'c . '2
, ,/.. .././ /All, ..."\ m 1..im.1•x ,■■ta.:ilsvat , , ‘. ..\, . .-,,,...
• /, ,� \� � axe .�. .1. ___I
— �+-*-� ,\\. , `���� a
I /,
-- i 4 i5,•,.. : 4:: ..., ..9, :..,:- *4, .. VC;%
.1 .444 - 4 4.- .0 4•4 -.,. It ,;;; ... 1 ,,,,,. . qt. p
I • P Q .. -. 1. .. . 2°,--- r coon, \•16 r:,
,t. _4,.., ir. ., , -• ,:fitcr„,- di„‘ ...., ._ . qe4
411rf;* 6 "irrmItA ,11,-7. :---"7#4,7;e9/0."- 3.
jir .6, -I 01.1--VA minas ... 'cirri-,. .
II „Ltt
, or. ,. .r �•a� V�I�r j,. =Is r �i,`4-_T
�. - psi. /i
4 13 11: Iskifo iliNit s;,-,9•■,.. pk_hrtinomma. E rtliew - :_,,,, ..,,,,„0,,—,
1 \ h _, r�► •• VIOLE `•�•
et fir:.4.4D T c� ' M \ • p p YiT= ` I11
4r#I/4 k%;■
cli
+� t O WI
_ .4 c,,, s .--p,_ - , 44$4. ao loo,4 z tf,.‘„ _
.. f illop,-,..... r � / `per '+' � . .: `1 /��, �`v ' /1-#.*S- ^ 8 mka.rAt,":-e ,I .1
.>-,. •, ,y,. eit„iftb .4 0.4 .4 if.: ittiel'k M•11,-741441111:to,..
g f6,40,,, /// '',c, / /., 7,--;-,m - hIN, -o-,4\:"..) ,,,,lipi,„4...,.... ......*kk.- • /
1,4, , .,/, 00 . _ __ ,.--...7 ii
..„.......... , ,,• ,
_,4,,,,.,
.., ,,,„„„.
I-I ix,/;'".1.'/ - waqr,.;VNI.N.*M.,,,, riiii, .4wiiii.....'"N:1%'■ itik 484.4.4:1141141411
1171. ///'1/ ...; e''' ‘ I
MI I I //J�1 '�!
• AREA LESS THAN 15 , 000Sq Ft
. 181 AREA GREATER THAN 15 , 000 S' q Ft
I I j BOUNDARY LINE .
I .
IM PROPERTY LINE
v/_ PROPOSED VARIANCE
I R EX.
XISTING STRUCTURE
1
CITYOF
I
' _._,, :- g, CHANHASSEN 1
i„,„ _., # AV
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 II
11 'a" (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM ,
TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff , Planner I
FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician 4,411C li
DATE: April 17, 1990
II
SUBJ: Variance Request to Construct a Single-Family Home on
Lots 1083 through 1089 , Carver Beach II File No. 90-10 Land Use Review
The site is densely wooded with a variety of hardwood trees. The
II
terrain is fairly steep, however, is suitable for a walk-out type
home. The subject parcel fronts on a City "unimproved" road
right-of-way (Laredo Drive) which is also deficient in width (40
II
feet versus 50 feet) for today's urban street standards but
typical for Carver Beach area.
The applicant is proposing a 16-foot wide private driveway over I
the City's right-of-way to access the property. As you may
recall , the City has currently adopted a private ordinance which
could provide guidance here; however, the ordinance does not deal
II
with the placement of private drives in undeveloped public
right-of-way. We have discussed having the use be allowed by
City permit where design standards are met. Multiple use of the
II
right-of-way and driveway by other property owners is allowed and
the owner is required to maintain liability coverage to protect
the City; however, the City Attorney has questioned the long-term
effectiveness of the liability coverage requirement. To
II
eliminate liability potential, two options are available. The
first option is to have the applicant extend the public street
versus a private driveway and provide a temporary -turnaround; 11 however, the costs may make it financially unfeasible. Second,
the applicant purchase additional property south of the site to
provide access and frontage on an improved street (Carver Beach II Road) . If this scenario was adopted, the existing right-of-way
on Laredo could be vacated.
City utility service is not immediately available to the
II
property. City sanitary sewer and water service is proposed to
be extended from Carver Beach Road along the unimproved
right-of-way to the property. City ordinance requires the City
II
maintain the water and sewer service from the main line to the
JI
Sharmin Al-Jaff
April 17, 1990
Page 2
shut-off valve (curb box) which is usually located at the
property line . In this case, however, the City would be
' responsible for maintaining over 100 feet of service line which
is excessive to normal standards. Typically, the City would
maintain approximately 25 feet of service line. Therefore, it is
recommended that the curb box be relocated to the right-of-way
line of Carver Beach Road versus Laredo. The property owner
would then be responsible for maintenance from the curb box at
Carver Beach Road to the house. A street opening permit will be
required for the extension of utilities together with a financial
security in the amount of $2,500 to guarantee restoration to the
roadway.
City records indicate this parcel went tax forfeit and the
previous sewer and water assessments were deleted. Therefore, if
' this variance is granted, they will be responsible for a typical
sewer and water connection charge for the area ($9 ,402. 27 ) . This
will be collected at the time of building permit issuance.
' Recommended Conditions
1 . If the private driveway is granted, the driveway shall be
' constructed to City standards and subject to a City permit.
2 . A street opening permit will be required for the extension of
' utilities together with a financial security in the amount of
$2 ,500 to guarantee road restoration.
3. The sanitary sewer service shall be extended from the drop
manhole versus the connection to the main.
4. The property owner will be responsible for typical sewer and
' water connection charges in the amount of $9 ,402. 27 to be
collected at the time of building permit issuance.
' ktm
c. Gary Warren, City Engineer
I
I
i939:ti 2/116/2.1 lic1:.M, tr'.ar.._a:.
11111I ADVA CE SURVEYING : ENG RI G CO.
/ tilt cow lake DW wtcwe/olls.ISO 15410 Shone(1121 Sal E 30 (.. ._
1 rw.sr15'ls'[.
s—100.00•..
auRVEY ma: FRANCIS TRINKA
8 .� 3
BORVEYEDI July 25, 1989 I
DRAFTED: August 4, 1989. eii.s •�
LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS I.
� •��._.. %/ '" / ...`ft.
Lots 1083 through 1089, CARVER BEACH, Carver County, Minnesota. i I % - ,N
_ /$/a wa.a;4� xbi
proposed Elevations: \ \/GEAR/NGS 543*INARE AMNIA= v /F.8 , e >..
:.r e)Ix
e.
Top of Foundation 1012,50 \ g• ?a a rr �`: 1@1
First Floor 1013.50 t 1 r�ss.
Garage Floor 1012.10 tL.. i .l \ y ~EI�G,
•
Lowest Floor 1000.80 +�'e� I Zc.r-,,
Benchmark Elevation 1011.21 aj% ,, F ' y
Benchmark Description: Top of Manhole as shown. \ N I'b r. • +' __ / //.' ,
I
V:.1 Cncrlotlen Source: iI s { 1 frt+
!11 W uses • rid the .Love dstcntM OK;er,r .nl:n ;•4 Chant els la$ to c•n Cr .;.lrs to an Ire,..snout i=•ern:ant` _7((�� •
regret. We cats to re:rsaentelt:n twat Cr,C•:erL C:•e 13 f1:t ton the trs;.rte car:',c a[.area e:t t..Yards cal 5N. A ��� 20 «_ • r�I ~ %
4� fe:w
wade to&termini the @stoat end ...cure of is As:rnp. if :ears Is ter down e:ncerntrp the .:ur.cy of U. kcal , 'b 0 �?�
Cs:fiction.car•p.tsot le;.l counsel stduld to retafsa:I.ierftro a title surcA and issue.title piston for air us. Is 's. 4 d r, tA� 1 •_ f ..1":9
peperly the survey. oe, #��+° °' _ : 15100.. 4 ,_. tiro
r UMW:. �1 ptiY i LswKS'w'jt. 1
W shawls those usr..nts which the client i•.ftr-s s of or.Alto w ha;en to te::re a.sr.of thre:;A ether source. Oa I ' �7 ts .9� S� siO. tr
1 son. does not �\T 7 C' s',
1 purport to shoe all use^.tts ice rrrt,@Uts. \.... cv ►� ;l,% a . %
3frdtrd s.^LCt,l t:^...clan.., - 4.41t*{ _o"Grates 112.ID;;e.Ito;'at:':p1,let—r;Its:, l':r:e barter 1:535. se:. d"o" is(Mod /a,then de•:t.s lard . 1, ••_ (J•' r
lace svaeent. ,P 3 io ie t i ( .V
` O�I `�$ ' � •` l
"And"Denotes the elevation on an esist Ira wrf.a. A Cot around an elevation de:ates t:Y elevation thot.a premed ..' .� a (y1
wrtaee Is to lo cons:r.:led to. :aid c:tc., tams indicate talstlep wince eta;aa.Aire&shut t:Moir liras 141cas. i1/. ✓.. r ,(� l:. AV 4i) ,4-)
Mnposed surfaces. �'/`r r� 4"� .l� •ir+
ti Q a: e. r•:1
gill..[MICr: �. ' r..'
1 i
I hereby certify that this wrrey.as prasre!by re:r under nr direct s.;rrsua and tea: I as a t Iy spis:.rsi land \ Y CO
Surveyor under the leis of the Sure of Air•et::a. I -. y. \!\ r
,� r
a
s.-:.:•,firma..A l : to. lCtl L 4At� ..
ScAL'l 011= INCH EC'U LS 23 F E3 -/N,c.. N.
•
.:.,.:rt.24.-S,.sa��